Talk:Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation?

There are now truth and reconcilliation committees active in numerous countries around the world. All of which are involved in very interesting activities. What would people think of turning this page into a disambiguity page? grefft 23:08, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

My feeling is that this page should remain as documentation of the original TRC. The top of the page does link to other versions, but these are seldom called the Truth and Reconciliation Commissison, partly because they are usually not in English Speaking countries. --Magicmike 23:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Matric essay

I wrote my matric history essay on "To what extent did the TRC achieve its aims?" Perhaps someone thinks it's worth reading (or even linking from here). It's at www.geocities.com/zamax23/trc_essay.html --Taejo | Talk

[edit] Criticisms section needed

This article feels somewhat biased, especially with the line "The TRC was a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa and, despite some flaws, is generally regarded as very successful." No flaws are listed, and most every statement in the article is pro-TRC. I think it may be good to add a criticisms section. We could mention the Biko family who were famously against amnesty and P.W. Botha's refusal to seek amnesty which resulted in merely a fine against the old President. Rab V 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other side, the TRC could be viewed as an instrument of propaganda. It is more than questionable whether the confessions were true. And what's more, the far greater crimes of the anti-apartheid-movement were never mentioned. Therefore, to put it mildly, the TRC was completely one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald4244 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased article

This article is highly biased - it fails to mention that the TRC brought just one prosecution (in 2004, which was made for political purposes) or that it was packed with ANC sympathizers and religious figures who were absurdly biased. Remember when the AWB tried to storm the proceedings having deemed them moot, or when PW Botha refused to show up and called the TRC a 'circus'? Remember when its interim report of 1998 had to be re-edited to remove outrageously biased reports concerning political figures? To say it was 'generally regarded as very successful' or that it was a 'crucial component of the transition' is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdpalmas (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 July 2006

The Second paragraph of the Criticisms Section seems heavily laced with author opinion:

While former president F.W. de Klerk appeared before the commission and reiterated his apology for the suffering caused by apartheid, many black South Africans were angered at amnesty being granted for human rights abuses committed by the apartheid government. The BBC has described such criticisms as stemming from a "basic misunderstanding" about the TRC's mandate,[3] which was to uncover the truth about past abuse, using amnesty as a mechanism, rather than to punish past crimes. But such criticims might more accurately be described as principled objections to the TRC's mandate - namely that, by offering an irrevocable amnesty to self-confessed torturers and murderers, albeit with the lauded aim of revealing truth, the TRC was actually engaging in a further abuse of victims' rights by denying them any possibility of justice.

Whilst the use of the BBC citation is good, the alternative interpretation is wholly author opinion and should probably be replaced with citation from a source who stated a similar view-point. The author then effectively concludes that the TRC 'abused' victims rights. This does not meet the impartiality standards I would expect from a Wikipedia entry. DavidParkes 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions needed

Under the "Impact" Section, this article really should mention Jane Taylor's "Ubu and the Truth Commission," which was a multimedia play performed by the Handspring Puppet Company. It's getting some critical attention in the academic community. 160.36.251.95 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Teresa Hooper, Tennessee

[edit] Truth commission to Truth and Reconciliation Commission

This is a heads up.See Talk:Truth commission, a requested move has been proposed to move Truth commission to Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is currently a redirect to this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trclogo.gif

Image:Trclogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Biko

I've rehashed and revisited an edit that had been reverted without discussion. I also think it might be helpful to begin a discussion on this page about the general issues surrounding this edit. The case of the family of Steve Biko was arguably the most high-profile example of victims of Apartheid atrocities objecting to the TRC on principled grounds. Biko's family contested his killers' application for amnesty on the basis that it violated a fundamental principle (enshrined in international law, albeit somewhat in vain) that victims cannot be deprived of their right to justice, whatever the perceived benefit for the greater good. Many other victims' families made the same point. As we can see from the BBC article quoted, such objections were often characterised as a "misunderstanding" of the TRC.

But the sources available do not provide any evidence that Biko's family - or any other - "misunderstood" the TRC, or its mandate. It seems that the family's point was precisely that they did understand the TRC's mandate - which was to offer amnesty in the hope of getting "truth" in exchange - but that they objected to it; or at least they objected to the "amnesty" part of it... To imply that the Biko family's position was based on a "misunderstanding", in the absence of concrete evidence, is neither NPOV, nor fair.

I think it would benefit this article if we could allow a serious, evidence-based, outline of the principled objections that were made about various aspects of the TRC, and try to get away from characterising, a priori, anyone who criticised the process as guilty of "misunderstanding" it.

[edit] Cry Freedom

I think it is useful to allow a mention of the film "Cry Freedom" in relation to Steve Biko. The person who decided to cut that information from the article did so on the basis that "Cry Freedom" was not Biko's main claim to fame. But to mention that his life was later featured in that film does not entail that we think the film was his main claim to fame; just that it is a noteworthy fact. "Cry Freedom" was a very high-profile film, shown all over the world. It did go into the story of Steve Biko's life in some detail, and it is true that it brought his story to people who had not previously been aware of it - just as "Erin Brockovich" did, vis a vis the life of Erin Brockovich, and "Hotel Rwanda" did, vis a vis the life of Paul Rusesabagina. It seems reasonable to suppose, given the wide circulation of "Cry Freedom", that some people reading this article might remember seeing the film, and might remember the story featured in that film of a young Apartheid activist being murdered in police custody, but won't necessarily remember all the names of all the people featured in that film. By mentioning that Steve Biko was the self-same activist whose story was featured in "Cry Freedom", I would therefore argue that we are adding useful context. It seems a shame to cut that context out. 86.159.141.218 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with Nuremburg trials

The article states the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was different from the Nuremburg trials, but it doesn't say in what way or ways it was different. I think it would help to put in some explanatory text there. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)